critical_partial_detokenize

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral details: it passes through non-tokens, does not fail on mixed input, and has a call limit. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: one sentence for purpose, one contrasting with sibling, and one for a constraint. Front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage, constraints, and behavior. Could mention error handling for invalid tokens, but output schema likely provides return type details. Overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and already includes parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Non-token values are passed through'). The tool description only restates this concept without adding new parameter-specific meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool detokenizes critical tokens while passing non-token values through unchanged. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'critical_detokenize' by noting it does not fail on non-tokens, providing a specific verb-resource combination.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly contrasts with 'critical_detokenize', telling when to use this tool (when non-token values may be present). Also mentions a maximum of 1024 values per call, providing clear usage constraints.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.